What did the judge in Bangladesh say when he convicted and sentenced Tulip Siddiq MP for 2 years imprisonment?
This case is all about the allotment of land plots by RAJUK (Capital Development Authority) to Sheikh Hasina (the former prime minister of Bangladesh) and her two children, and to Sheikh Rehana (Hasina’s sister) and two of her three children. Tulip Siddiq, the third child, did not receive a plot.
The prosecution case is that Hasina had concealed information that she and her family members already had other plots/houses in the RAJUK area of Dhaka city which, according to the rules, should have meant that they could not have been allotted the chance to purchase a new plot in Purbachal. The plots were as a result illegally allotted. As a public servant, Hasina was guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 as she abused her power as a public servant, corruptly influencing her subordinate officials to ensure the allotments took place. The others are accused of aiding and abetting that offence.
Sheikh Rehana was sentenced to seven years imprisonment; Sheikh Hasina to fiv years imprisonment. And Tulip Siddiq to 2 years imprisonment.
The Judge Md Robiul Alam of Dhaka Special Judge Court-4 said this about Tulip Siddiq when reading out his summary judgement.
“It is proven that the accused Sheikh Rehana Siddiq influenced her sister, the former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, to obtain a plot in the Purbachal Housing Project.
“Accused Tulip Rizwana Siddiq, in order to help her mother Rehana Siddiq get the plot, communicated via mobile and internet apps with the former Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary, No. 1 accused Md. Salauddin, and signed documents as a witness—specifically on the deed. PW-20 and PW-21 testimonies confirm this.”
In a subsequent press conference, the prosecutors added this:
“Tulip Siddiq, as a Member of the British Parliament, being a holder of superior power, influenced her aunt, Sheikh Hasina. Since Sheikh Hasina had previously taken three plots in her own name and in the names of her two children, Tulip Siddiq influenced her aunt by saying this: “Since you have taken three plots, you must give three plots to my mother and siblings too.”
Two witnesses from the Ministry of Public Works gave testimony regarding these matters. Regarding how Tulip Siddiq influenced [the process], we presented witnesses in court. Through various apps and telephone [calls], coming to the country… through the Prime Minister’s former Principal Secretary, Salauddin Saheb… she influenced [them] through him.”
And then in response to my questioning one of the prosecutors, Md Tariqul Islam said:
“Witnesses Mr. Osman Gani and Uzzal Hossain, they made those statements before the magistrate, that Tulip Siddiq made communication with Mr. Salauddin, the Principal Secretary, one of prime minister Sheikh Hasina, and she instigated, she provoked, she poked, to make allotment to her mother, sister, and brother.”
And then there was this interchange:
Journalist: How did she make those messages? How did she communicate?
Prosecutor: They were present there… and they heard.
Journalist: Face-to-face meetings? Are you saying they were face-to-face meetings? Or are you saying they were WhatsApp messages?
Prosecutor: Telephone… or any other apps. They stated… that they communicated with Tulip Siddiq.
Journalist: So you have copies of the screenshots of the WhatsApp messages?
Prosecutor: No, we have not yet been…
Journalist: And when were these messages sent? Which month and year?
Prosecutor: But it has been heard… by Mr. Osman Gani… and Uzzal Hossain, who were very close to Mr. Salauddin Ahmed, and Mr. Salauddin Ahmed was very close to Tulip Siddiq, and Sheikh Rehana and Sheikh Hasina, and others.
Clearly one needs to see the statements given by the two witnesses to be able to understand what evidence was given against Tulip Siddiq, but the suggestion seems to be that the two witnesses say they were present when Siddiq communicated with Mr Salauddin, Hasina’s private secretary, over this land matter. The prosecutors did say however they had no screenshots of Whats App messages.
As I have written previously, this was a trial that took place without any of these three accused having a lawyer present.
No doubt, as soon as the full judgement is published, there will be much more to say about this.
